It is common for businesses and homeowners to have an electronic system for detecting alarm event conditions (such as intrusion, fire, carbon monoxide, flooding, temperature conditions, appliance status, etc.) at their premises, which reports the event to a server or other system that notifies the user who can monitor the systems through their phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), etc., and/or remotely interact and control systems at their premises (such as lighting, thermostats, energy management devices, security systems, etc.). These systems may also provide alarm event information to a monitoring center that can contact first responders on the user's behalf, typically over a conventional phone line, and more recently over cellular and broadband networks. Such electronic systems may be capable of switching between armed and disarmed states, determining which types of events, if any, may trigger an alarm event based on the state of the system. Arming and disarming are often done through a user interface, such as a proximity card reader, keypad, touchscreen, smartphone or internet application. Such systems may also allow for entry through a doorway without generating an alarm event while a system is in an armed state if a user provides an authentication code just prior to or immediately following use of a doorway.
Often such systems may require a manual interaction between an alarm monitoring system user and an alarm monitoring system interface to arm or disarm a system. Interaction may require entry of an authentication code on a keypad located inside a structure within a certain time of entering through a door that has a sensor capable of registering an alarm event upon opening and/or closing. Alternatively, a system interface, such as a proximity card reader, may allow a user to arm or disarm a system prior to entering and/or exiting a premises with an authentication code.
Additionally, individuals constantly use various items as proxies for permission or authorization tokens to perform certain actions—keys or fobs to unlock doors and start cars, personal identification numbers (PINS) to use automated teller machines (ATMs) or disarm electronic alarm systems, ID badges to open access controlled areas at work, driver's licenses to validate authorization to use credit cards, etc. This often requires individuals to carry several of these items (keys, fobs, access badges, etc.) with them at the same time. Additionally, these devices are prone to loss or theft and can provide the person possessing them with the same permissions as the rightful owner (e.g. an access control card, even though it may have a photo of the rightful owner on it, can still usually be used by anyone possessing it to access otherwise restricted areas).
It is known in the art that permissions in the form of authentication codes, proxies or authorization tokens may be stored for use with portable or wearable devices, including cell phones, smart wearable devices, or jewelry. Storing permissions in such devices allows for consolidation of authentication codes within a single device which may simplify and add convenience to procedures or transactions which require authentication. For example, a user may store permissions for use with an alarm monitoring system, a vehicle, and bank accounts in a single device. Such device may require an authorization code or biometric identification to grant permission to use stored passcodes. Often such devices only require a single instance of an authorization code or biometric identification to establish persistent authentication using the device. Alternatively, some devices may require reentry of an authorization code at predetermined intervals, upon powering off/on a device, or for each and every use. Such devices are often designed such that a user must initiate a manual interaction with the device in order to utilize a stored permission. For example, a permission stored on a user's cell phone may require the user to launch an application on the phone to provide a permission or remove the phone from a pocket to place in proximity to an authentication requestor such as a proximity access card reader.
Those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that, while incorporation of multiple permissions in to a single persistent authentication device may offer conveniences to a user, doing so may undermine the security which such permissions are designed to provide. For example, a cell phone authorized to provide authentications to multiple authentication requestors may create a security risk if the owner of the cell phone, and authorized user of the permissions, is no longer carrying the phone. In addition, safeguards such as revoking permissions at predetermined intervals or after each use may undermine the convenience provided by a persistent system of authentication as a timed interval may not correlate to a need for reauthorization of a permission. Further, incorporation of persistent authentication in to a device which is designed to be carried as opposed to worn may create the need for additional manual interaction with a device which further reduces the convenience of such a means of persistent authentication. Such devices designed for carry as opposed to for wear are also prone to loss or theft while permissions are still authorized.